About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 24 (225 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Us 5, Hwang 3, Francis 3, San Francisco 2, Linn 2, Mr. Duffy 1, Un 1, San Lorenzo 1, Appellant 1, Scott Sanchez 1, Lill 1, Honda 1, Hurtado 1, Fung 1, Southern California 1, Francis Woods 1, Lazarus 1, Sanchez 1, Rubke 1, Francis Wood 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    March 22, 2013
    7:00 - 7:30am PDT  

7:00am
>> it was not the permit holder, it was the, you are the board of appeals. >> it was us? >> no it was not you, it was the planning commission. thank you for pointing that out. this house is west of my house and somewhere on the planning commission said that it was north. and i spent the whole time in front of the planning commission and i have the photographs for you and i can show them to you, showing a view from my house and this is the house, 1325 in the foreground and the pacific ocean in the background, which is west. >> so then you are off. >> i am in number 20 on sanlorenzo. >> we can see it from the side. >> i am behind it. >> okay. >> thank you, we will hear from the permit holder now.
7:01am
>> good evening, president hwang and commissioners. representative for the permit holder and the respondent. this is in response to the appellant's concern regarding obstruction of sunlight or air flow, the appellant like he mentioned is located behind the project. and so, the appellant's property is actually much higher than the grade of the property project. so, i don't think that the sunlight or air flow would be any more significantly impacted. in response to the appellant's concerns regarding the height of the building in comparison to the neighboring building as you mentioned runs up a hill each building rises accordingly. and i think that also mentioned
7:02am
at the discretionary review hearing about the planning commission, the planning commission architect actually stated that it was not six feet of an increase that it was more like 3 feet. but again, i don't... i am not an architect, but at the discretionary review he did mention that it was not actually that steep of a jump from house to house. the appellant requested that the project plans be modified to a shorter roof. but the plans of the building feature the losses and the asthetic of the neighborhood with the pitched roof with clay tiles it will appear higher than a low roof or a flat roof or a low sloped roof contrary to the statement that a shorter roof will fall in line with the original drawings, i think that the design of the roof or the modification of the design of the roof would actually impact the neighborhood negatively. the design has personal and
7:03am
particular specifications that would change it significantly, it is over all appearance as well as general upkeep. it provides more structure stability as well as excellent drainage. while the low sloped roof requires more maintenance more prone to moisture damage. in taking dao consideration the basic structure and characteristics of the building in comparison of the roof flat or low sloped roof, the characteristic of a modern home which is contrary to the design of the home currently. the design of the project has been discussed at great lengths over several years, probably over eight years now. to take into account suggestions and recommendations of the neighborhood and also in accordance with the saint francis wood neighborhood design guidelines. the project architect worked with the architect of the home association and concessions have already been made to the
7:04am
original drawings and have also been presented before the board. i think that the home as built or as designed, rather, will have unique features that will contribute to the visual attraction of the home and the street and the neighborhood. per the discretionary review hearing of the planning commission on january tenth, all attending board members and president ruled in favor of the project without changes or altering made to the plan. some even commenting and agreeing that every project would be given attention to detail. >> given the concerns of the appellant the project plans have nonetheless been designed in accordance with the building code and all requirements have been met. i don't feel that any circumstances warrant any revisions of the design of the home or roof.
7:05am
i also have a picture that i wanted to show of the property, which is here. and mr. linn's home is here and as you can see the neighborhood. >> could you point that out again. >> this is property. the subject property. and right on the (inaudible) way which is actually, this is if you are driving up portola drive this is the property and this is the neighboring home. so the appellant's home is right here. if you notice all of the other houses actually have you know, high pitched roofs just as the neighbor does, his roof is very high pitch. and so i mean, there is no houses that have plat roofs but one which is extremely modern and so it would be a completely
7:06am
different roof to the project house that has been designed to feature certain characteristics that would be consistent with the neighborhood as well as the home. so as you can also see this picture was taken prior to the home being built. and there are extremely high trees, that are on the property before they were cut down and the land was excavated. and i don't see our home being any more different from the trees blocking any sort of sunlight or air flow as you can see. they are pretty high. and almost in line. i could not get a front view. as you can see, i am sorry, the trees are extremely high. thank you.
7:07am
>> thanks. >> miss new? the drawing that mr. linn showed which had elevations as to the height of the roof, represented different data than your drawings now. >> correct. >> was there a survey done? >> there was. the, as you can see in the notification, the previously there were notifications the ground level actually shows like a straight line as well, when it actually isn't. so, in order to compile a new set of drawings, the architect actually had to go to the neighboring property to measure and they allowed us to measure their backyard and grading and previous to that information, we didn't have basically would not have had that information unless we had done that
7:08am
previously. so, i don't know if it was an oversight or what it was is it was not in our attention at all to what the appellant is saying that we did on the slide of hand, you know? we did actually follow everything according to the, everything that the requirements that were set out by the building and planning code, we have gone to. >> thank you. >> my question was in a different direction, but that is all right. thank you. >> mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez, the planning department. given the lateness of the hour i will try to be as brief as possible. this project does have a long history it was before this board before, and there were revisions of the board had adopted and there was a special condition's permit that was approved and the departments worked with the executive
7:09am
director to insure that the board's conditions were successfully implemented and during the course of that appeal process we did find and i think that it correctly pointed out by the appellant inconsistentcy in the addenda and the approval and the things that had changed and we tried our best to catch of the issues and one of the things that we did not recognize at the time that this was not a level lot as depicted on the plans this is a laterally sloping lot and so the project was constructed and the appellant pointed out to the department that the building was higher than was being shown on the plans. so we promptly suspended the building permit and reviewed the matter and found that it was a combination of the laterally sloping lot and plus the misrepresentation of the adjacent property and that is why we got to the number that we did. but that being said, the
7:10am
building was actually being built according to plans, it was the correct height. so the over all height of the structure we had the building department measure this several time it was correct it was the representation and the relationship to the adjacent properties. so i made a decision to do a neighborhood notification on this revision permit to correct the relationship and also more importantly i think that the lateral slope of the lot and the view was filed on that and we had a planning commission hearing and the commission did up hold the project revised and taking into consideration appropriately the context. so just wanted to clarify that the available for any questions. >> could you refresh our memory as to the conditions we imposed? >> i was hoping that you would. >> one was related. >> i am much older than you. >> one was actually related to
7:11am
the height and we actually did specifically call out the height that was on the plans which was an incorrect data. >> yeah. >> and i think that we have corrected everything now and these revised plans. >> it appears that was the case. but, if you could also and i'm looking at the orientation of this site verses mr. linn's home. and it appears to me that the site is in a way northwest direction from mr. linn's house. >> if i could put on the overhead, a parcel map that was included this is part of the packet that we gave to the commission and it should be in your materials. so you are correct, it is i would say, west to northwest, it is very much to the west, but very slightly to the north
7:12am
this is just a little bit of the compass area here and the west and corresponding up to be on the plans and so the relationship, the appellant's property is here and the subject property is here. so it is located to the west but also slightly to the north. >> and it also is down hill as well. >> it also appears that then the pockets of sunlight to mr. linn's house would occur in the late afternoon and the sun is at a relatively low point with respect to the horizon. >> i would agree, late afternoon and in the summer months and also you are pointing out that the subject property does have no variances granted for us and so they do have a complying rear yard and
7:13am
the appellant also has one and so separating the two properties would be the rear yards, and the co-complying rear yards of the properties and so it is as fairly good distance between the building walls of the two buildings. and there is i believe, two complying rear yards. >> okay. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. duffy? nothing. >> is there any public comment? please step forward. >> president hwang how many minutes? >> good evening, my name is mark and i am a neighbor at 15 san lorenzo. i am here to comment on the project and basically say that i am against what they are proposing to do here and this roof line seems to be out of hand with the rest of the roof lines in the road. as far as the code compliant as
7:14am
far as i am concerned there is not much of a rear yard it is somewhere in the neighborhood of ten feet and i know that it is an unconforming lot. but we have lived there for many, many years and i used to run in that lot as a kid. and we had no problem with the actual project being done, but there is just in the way that it was put forth and the way that it was built and right now it is a bliet because we have young children and animals and there are holes and open fences and things where kids could get in. so i feel like it has been neglected and i feel that this should be scrutinized at this point heavily because of the history. and like i said, i know mr. linn very well and i don't know the type of person that would raise... (inaudible) and i have never seen him up in arms. but when stuff like this happens we have to be diligent and also have to understand when i stand behind his house and i look at that roof line and i know that it is not even
7:15am
depleted, it is below its intended height, there is a lot of (inaudible) and light and air lost for him. i think that this needs to be reviewed and i would suggest strongly that we consider the original height which was oddly enough incorrect, way off. and just to try to compromise here and get the project done because it is a bliet in the neighborhood. thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any other public comment? >> i just wanted to mention that i don't remember receiving a 311 notification for the revision on the new established roof height. i know that is probably not really an issue at this point. but, it just seems like everything around the project seems to be a little strange. thank you. >> thank you, any other public comment? >> okay, seeing none we will
7:16am
start with rebuttal. mr. linn, you have three minutes. >> keep this pretty short. i don't have a lot of rebuttal to say, i pretty much covered everything. as far as flat roofs in the neighborhood i don't have photographic evidence but there are many. i drove around saint francis woods because this may come up with the board. there is probably around 20 in our neighborhood. and only 5 that have flat roofs and they get up peeked a lill bit and then flat and from the street this appear to be peaked. >> the trees from the aerial shot you cannot get height out of that. we have never really had anything blocking or anything like that. and this is a photograph, this is a photograph from the other
7:17am
board showing, showing this house and now if you look at 1337's roof it is not steeply peaked. this is on a temporary frame just to hold up the tarp. this roof will be taller than what is depicted here with the blue tarp. and that is the shot that i was showing that shows the pacific ocean in the background. clearly this is west of me. that is all. >> mr. linn, you are saying that the house behind the blue tarp is yours? >> no. just taken from... >> from your house? >> i see. >> it is confusing, saint fra* francis would law the lines around and there are very few straight lines. >> thank you. >> any rebuttal?
7:18am
>> i am just here today just in hopes to bring a close to this issue because it has been ongoing for several years. you know, working with the city departments personally, i live in southern california, and so, i drove up here this morning and i know that it is late for us all. but i really do want to comply and our family does want to comply with everything that the city requires of us. and i know that there are other neighbors that were not able to make it today. but i do want to see this project finished and the sooner the better because at this time, as you can see, we were not able to continue building because of the suspension of the permit. so the project as is, leaves it open to vandalism and you know,
7:19am
issues that we just want to resolve at this time and i mean, we actually sent 311 notification to the radius, and if there is a issue as to why a neighboring property did not receive the notification i am not able to answer that. for almost an year since they issued the complaint we did send the 311 notifications and we have complied with all of the other requests from dbi and the planning commission. and we went through the process of the discretionary review. and we are here today, we waited several months to be heard, so, my parents, you know, they bought this property with their life savings and i know that we have all... people at all and throughout this year, we have been paying, heavy, heavy interest and basically dipped into, you know, (inaudible) the circumstance that here today that i hope that you can
7:20am
sympathize with and we just really want to bring the close to this situation once and for all. so, if there is, you know, any protocol, if there is any questions, you know, if there is anything that i can do at this point to resolve this issue we would really like to do that today. thank you. >> hold on i have a question. >> yes. >> have you guys had an open dialogue with the appellant at this point and how many times have you guys met trying to resolve this? >> actually, i met peter i actually personally went to his house when i believe that when i was in college. so like maybe 8 or 9 years ago. >> you have not had any recent. when the project started to being built after that initial
7:21am
meeting he also would actually continue to call, because he would, i don't know if he would go on to the property himself or to determine where the line is. where in the instance where we did meet and he came out and tom, i forget his last name but he is a building inspect or and he basically came out and he had to complain about some sort of dispreptcy with a line and he was arguing over something like an inch. so i think that basically i mean, showed me that, no matter what type of a process or what possessions that we have made and what notifications and no matter what we did to work with the building department and the appellant would he have been or would he have stopped. i don't know if this is just a gradual animosity throughout the years. >> i don't think that we need
7:22am
to go too much further in this direction. if there was a way to do anything with the appellant, as far as working together and coming to a compromise, it would have been back then when, you know, trying to get a compromise to get to this hearing today. >> is your family planning, is this going to be your residence? >> yes. >> this is actually my parents dream home. i lived in saint francis and i was named after san francisco and to live in saint francis woods and it has actually become a little bit of a nightmare. >> thank you. >> and any departmental rebuttal? >> no. >> commissioners, the matter is yours. >> well commissioners, you know that this is probably i think that the fourth or fifth hearing on this case. some of you have not seen it, but the, and there were in the
7:23am
original documentation quite a bit of discreptcies. i thought that we had resolved most of them. i have been aware that the height was off by that much and you showed me how originally the house was larger. the department has accepted the change, the permit holder was forced to go through a revision and therefore open a way for the additional appeals. and the department, however, is satisfied that they have now done it accurately as far as what the height of the building was that was being constructed and i am prepared to accept that. >> and i move to up hold the permit that it conforms with
7:24am
the permits that in terms of the over all building plan. >> on the basis that it conforms to the approved plans, as it relates to the building height? >> that is correct. >> okay. >> we have a motion then. and commissioner fung. to up hold this permit on the basis that it conforms to the approved plans as it relates to the building height. >> yes. >> on that motion, president hwang? >> aye. >> commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> vice president lazarus? >> aye. >> and commissioner honda? >> aye.
7:25am
>> thank you. >> the vote is 5-0, the permit is upheld on that basis. >> and there is no further business before the board. >> the meeting is adjourned. okay good afternoon ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the march 19th meeting board of directors and authority please call the role. present
7:26am
director heinicke. >> ramos present. director rubke. mr. chairman you have a kwoer you mean. please be advised that electronic devices are prohibited at the meeting. the person responsible for one going off may be asked to leave the meeting. and the vibrations do cause microphone interference. so item 4 approval of the regular meeting. >> motion to approve. >> second. >> all in favor say aye. >> aye. >> thank you very much. communications directors please be sunrised that there will be no discussion of anticipated litigation in closed session
7:27am
today. >> also we have an over flow room we have a large crowd for several items that's the light court downstairs in the first floor however they are just setting up the room right now and hopefully we will honor that and the people that will want to speak to the board and a number of people are here today anticipating the report and as you probably know we apologize to everybody for that . we fully anticipated this would be ready by today otherwise we wouldn't have scheduled it we feel it is an important document though and the town hall meeting scheduled in a couple of weeks will be helpful i do want to apologize to the people who have planned their day around this and it's not available.
7:28am
>> item 6. >> new un finished business. seeing none okay. >> item 7 directors report. >> good afternoon. good average chairperson and members of the board and members of the public and staff i couldn't have the a few quick things to report on as part of this report -- first of all one that we're very excited about the 33 rd annual government awards a project of spur their annual award ceremony is going to be held tonight and for municipal governments in san francisco this is the academy awards this is the highest honor that a city government or team can
7:29am
receive each year there's a panel of folks who a assemble and out of that they select i think 3 individuals and one team again out of the thousands of managers in this city so i'm very happy and proud to announce that one of our nominees is being honored lee -- our director of security investigations and emergency preparedness and enforcement is one of the award ees tonight it's a very high honor it's something that she's been recognized for although she's only been with us for a short time first as an sfpd

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)